This business of limiting debates is not a good strategy

[Aerows]

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is going to sink the ship with this debate limiting garbage and especially the timeline. The deadline for a Democrat to register as a Democrat to be able to vote in the primary in New York is *before* the first damn debate.

Has the DNC lost their marbles?

Here we sit, and the Republicans have already had 2 debates and we aren't going to have another one for nearly a month.

That really chaps my ass. Why in the HELL would you want to limit your party's candidates face time and opportunities to differentiate themselves from the clown car?

Over and above that, look at the optics. It's like the DNC and DWS have no faith in their candidates to be able to sustain more than a handful +1 of debates. Our candidates aren't that damn bad.

[msongs]

1. perhaps the head of the party could speak up on the issue lol. nt

[Aerows]

2. I'm pretty sure at this point

nobody knows who that is.

I know I sure as hell don't know who that is.

[Gman]

3. We don't need any debates as long as the GOP

is having debates like the one last week. Democrats don't need to say a word because the GOP debates give voters every reason why they should not vote for them. People will be pretty repulsed in general after their next one to guarantee any Democrat a win.

[liberal_at_heart]

4. So the Democrats don't have to do anything? Sorry. That is not good enough for me.

[Gman]

5. Democrats just have to say

"Look, we're not them."

Debates are a waste of time and money anyway.

[Aerows]

7. That may satisfy you as a voter

but since I have no intentions of supporting a GOP candidate, I want to see what the people I *WILL*choose among them to vote for have to say.

[Gman]

8. Understandable

I'm only concerned with putting a Democrat in the WH. I have my favorite. I know all about all the others too. Any one of them would make a fine prez.

[cprise]

10. And all the swing voters who feel more familiar with the Republicans?

They will vote for "the evil they know" rather than someone they were just recently introduced to.

The party is setting the candidates up to seem unfamiliar in the eyes of voters. And all because they are loathe to give exposure to the progressive candidates.

As in 2012, they'd rather have Republicans winning than progressives.

[Aerows]

6. Me either n/t

[Uncle Joe]

9. Probably because Schultz and her ilk are in tank with the "Deep State."

That really chaps my ass. Why in the HELL would you want to limit your party's candidates face time and opportunities to differentiate themselves from the clown car?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016132673

The Deep State Hiding in Plain Sight

Thanks for the thread, Aerows.